SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Saravanan @ Olai Saravanan & Another - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its, Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
CRL A.591 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Vijayakumar, M. Rajavelu, Advocates. For the Respondent:Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

The reliability of prosecution witnesses' evidence and the consideration of minor contradictions in the evidence as immaterial in accepting the case of the prosecution.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeals - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) r/w 149, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC - The court found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. The appeals were partly allowed, and the sentence was modified to two years Rigorous Imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326 of IPC for attacking the victim with a knife, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution witnesses provided evidence of the attack and the injuries sustained by the victim. The appellants denied the allegations but did not present any defense witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the victim and the medical officers, to be reliable and corroborative. The court noted minor contradictions in the evidence but held that they were immaterial. The court also considered the quantum of sentence and modified the sentence to two years Rigorous Imprisonment.

Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses and the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimony of the victim and the medical officers, which corroborated the prosecution's case. The court also considered the minor contradictions in the evidence to be immaterial. The court modified the sentence based on the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.

Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the conviction and sentence were modified. The appellants were sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 15.10.2020 in S.C.No.14 of 2018.)

Common Judgment

1. Both these Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 15.10.2020 in S.C.No.14 of 2018.

2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.591 of 2021 is arrayed as A-1 in S.C.No.14 of 2018 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.518 of 2020 is arrayed as A-2 in the above referred case. Along with other 3 accused, they stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) r/w 149, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. By a judgment dated 15.10.2020, the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. In otherwise, the trial Court acquitted the other accused from the charges.

3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, both A- 1 and A-2 are before this Court, by way of filing these Criminal Appeals.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the appellant in Crl.A.No.591 of 2021 is referred as A-1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.518 of 2020 is referred as A-2.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows;

5.1. P.W.3-Praveenkumar is the victim in the occurrence. P.W.1-Elumalai, is his father. Previous to the occurrence, P.W.1 was working as a driver and the accused herein are his friend. Due to the enmity with one Kathirvel, who is residing in the same locality, A-1 and A-2 are not in talking terms with P.W.3, since the said Kathirvel is the friend of P.W.3. On 25.08.2016, around 11.00p.m., when P.W.3 went to attend the nature call near to the river side, A-1 called him and at the time when P.W.3 refused to go there, A-1 caught hold of his shirt and abused him in filthy language. Later, all the accused joined together and attacked P.W.3 with wooden log. In the same transaction, A-1 after removing the dresses worn by P.W.3 with the help of knife, cut P.W3's left leg and both wrists. As a result of which, P.W.3 sustained injuries in left leg as well as in both hands and ultimately, he fell down. At that time, P.W.1 came there and came to know the occurrence. However, after seeing the P.W.1, all the accused threatened him with dire consequences and ran away from the spot. Immediately, P.W.2, who is none other the son-inlaw of P.W.1 called 108 ambulance and admitted the P.W.3 in the Royapettah Government Hospital for treatment. In the hospital, on the same day, at about 2.50p.m., the police enquired P.W.1 and received the complaint [Ex.P.1] from him. During such time, P.W.1 handed over the blue colour jeans pant [M.O.1] ramar colour trouser (jatty) [M.O.2] to the police.

5.2. On receipt of the statement from P.W.1, P.W.12, Elango, the then Inspector of Police, Adayar Police Station, on the same day, returned to the Police Station, registered F.I.R. in Crime No.611 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.13.

5.3. After registering the F.I.R., P.W.12 took up the case for investigation. On the same day, he visited the scene of occurrence at Malligaipoo Nagar and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared an observation mahazar under Ex.P.14. He had drawn the rough sketch under Ex.P.15. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

5.4. In the meantime, after admitting P.W.3 in the Hospital, P.W.10-Dr.Syed Abdul Kadhar attached with Royapettah Government Hospital examined P.W.3 and found the following injuries;

“1. deep lac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top